ACS:Law copyright file sharing claims, Gallant Macmillan - and probably some others along the way...

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Write back, tell them the claim is uttelry rediculous and you'll (your dad) defend yourself in court vigourously; now bog off with the threats and get real.

[pridewat]

Hello all

 

My dad has just recieved a 3rd letter from them, once again stating they recognise that our previous response was a template taken from the internet, and that their open offer of compromise is withdrawn.

 

They have now sent a offer to settle under part 36 of the civil procedure rule, asking for £625 instead of the original £500. We have 14 days to pay it. my dad is now getting more worried about it, so some advice would be appreciated.

 

yes send them another lod and refuse to accept their claim and offer. one letter should be enough to cover both.their aim is maximum harrassment of a lot of innoccent people

[cashins]

yes send them another lod and refuse to accept their claim and offer. one letter should be enough to cover both.their aim is maximum harrassment of a lot of innoccent people

 

It is my view that is the name of the game and in fact they brag on their website that they have already got considerable moneys in doing just that.

 

Apart from the fact that their claim has little merit under English Law as it stands (and they know it), it is hardly realistic to imagine that a firm of that size could actually handle several thousand court cases at once, or that their clients would put up the very large sums involved for court fees.

 

Of course it may occur to them to try a few to scare the rest, but when they lost well, the game would be up wouldn't it?

 

David

[Yorky2008]

Dont know if it has been tried but has anyone tried finishing their LOD with something along the lines of:

 

"I do not expect any further corresspondance from you unless it is either to inform me that the matter is closed or with details of the confirmed court date which I will vigoursly defend.

 

Should you contact me with your spurious demands and harassment for money then each letter will be charge at my regular hourly rate of £xx.00/hour. By replying to this letter or sending out future demands not complying to the above you are agreeing to to these terms which will be enforced and passed to a third party if necessary and whos associated costs you agree to be liable for"

 

I remember a post somewhere on here where someone wrote as much and got a DCA to reimburse him for 'training costs'.

 

Let them stick that in their template and smoke it!

 

Yorky.

[Huff&Puff]

It is my view that is the name of the game and in fact they brag on their website that they have already got considerable moneys in doing just that.

 

Apart from the fact that their claim has little merit under English Law as it stands (and they know it), it is hardly realistic to imagine that a firm of that size could actually handle several thousand court cases at once, or that their clients would put up the very large sums involved for court fees.

 

Of course it may occur to them to try a few to scare the rest, but when they lost well, the game would be up wouldn't it?

 

David

 

Davenport Lyons took one or two to court, then bragged about it to anyone who would listen. Curiously the only cases they have ever taken to court were undefended, so that they got a default judgement. I was, and still am, deeply suspicious as to whether they were ever genuine cases

[lickthewallfatboy]

these idiots need to be challenged head on

 

they are nothing better than [problematic],pure and simple

[car2403]

Keep complaining to anyone that will listen

[andydd]

Hi,I recieved one of these letters about 2 months ago, we are on tiscali and they were asking for £500. I sent the template LOD found on beaingtreatened.com.I recieved another letter just yesterday stating that they will not accept a template letter as a denial. I am now in the process of writing my second letter of denial, again from the templated off of the above webiste. I think i will also point out the fact that both of the letters sent to me regarding this were also both template letters. See what they say to that. After this letter we will just ignore them until if/when we get a court summons!Stick it to the man!xx

 

Surely a good reply would just to send a quick reply to them stateing that you do not accept their letter accusing you of copyright infringement because it is a template letter..hee

 

Andy

[lickthewallfatboy]

who do they think they are?

[Harris Gill]

Hi

 

Received my third letter from ACS on Saturday, also informing me that my second LOD was a template, even though I state clearly that the download couldn't have been made _rest o information I'll save for court (if they do go ahead).

 

Been stressing over it, I got accused of downlaoding gay porn (Army F***ers)- the same one mentioned in Watchdog case- Now, why would so many other people want to download the same gay porn movie at the same time? There isn't a good enough logical reason!

 

I'm going to send another LOD and refuse the offer. I will fight them. I am innocent, and my advice to all, is do not panic, and think that your same boat as mnay others! Together we will fight the b******s!

 

Harris

[cashins]

I am not being chased by these people.

 

It is worth noting however, that I have been threatened on a regular basis by better people than this and for much larger sums, (five figures in one case).

 

If you have sent an LOD (no matter what bullsh*t they come back with) the ball is in their court. If you insist on adding more -'any action you may bring will be vigorously defended' along with 'we will not correspond further on this matter' will do.

 

As stated Daveport Lyons never won a defended action in the same circumstances. Their operation relied on the same threats and bluster to extract money from the faint hearted.

 

If it was me I would have tired of this by now and simply said 'Put up or shut up' but thats up to you guys.

 

David

[Yorky2008]

Cant take the credit for this as its come from Slyck.com, makes interesting reading and may help anyone replying with a LOD to ACS:Law. It is from the Government Digital Britain consultation paper.

 

by Townie » Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:39 pm

Time on my hands wrote:Consultation on Legislation to Address Illicit P2P File-Sharing

Starting Date: 16-06-09

Closing Date: 29-09-09

 

This consultation sets out the Government’s legislative approach for addressing the problem of illicit use of Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing technology to exchange unlawful copies of copyright material.

 

http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/page51696.html

 

 

Having read many times how ACS/DL or whoever insist there is, despite us all knowing there is none, a requirement to secure a wireless network. Reading the above consultation paper I came across this little snippet on page 33.

 

Quote:

 

• There is no legal obligation on consumers to secure their wireless routers or to check to

ensure their security has been breached. All ISPs as a matter of course offer some

form of protection for wireless connections, although they cannot ensure that

consumers install or use it correctly. It is also the case that many of the standard or

recommended protections can be breached with a little expertise.

In other words, while the process by which rights holders is reliable at identifying the internet

connection used, it cannot be regarded as a reliable indication that the broadband subscriber

identified was the individual responsible for the infringement or will have knowledge of the

individual responsible. This could have implications for any decisions to impose more punitive

sanctions under the code, such as requiring a more robust level of evidence.

These issues would need to be addressed as part of the notification – for example giving

directions to information on how to properly secure a wireless connection or information on the

legal position and the way in which P2P technologies operate.

 

Unquote.

 

From the horses mouth ,so as to speak, the Government confirm there is no legal obligation, something to point ACS to the next time they make such a claim.

[Huff&Puff]

In other words, while the process by which rights holders is reliable at identifying the internet connection used, it cannot be regarded as a reliable indication that the broadband subscriber identified was the individual responsible for the infringement or will have knowledge of the

individual responsible.

 

They are dead wrong about it being reliable with regard to the Internet connection used. IP address spoofing is both simple and commonplace.

[Honda67]

Have just received a 3rd letter off ACS after sending my second letter of denial 4 weeks ago. Its definately a template as it starts off by stating that to date they have received neither payment or response from me! (untrue they responded to my 1st letter of denial). I was working at the time and date in question and couldn't have downloaded scooter but they wouldn't listen and still demanded the £500.07. Anyway this latest letter gives me 7 days to pay or compromise the original sum and states I am at real or immediate risk of proceedings being issued against me without further reference or recourse to me. It goes on to say if they do issue proceedings they will seek an award for damages together with an order for immediate interim payment of £1000. It says they urge me to use this final opportunity to settle early within the timeframe and failing which they reserve the right to issue proceedings without and further notice or warning. It also says if I am unsure what to do to seek independant legal advice from a solicitor or CAB! What should I do? just ignore this or write to them again but they are just ignoring what I have to say? Thay are very Menacing.

[rtundlbrush]

I also, just have been sent a 2nd letter, which sadi if I do not respond within 7 days the fine will go up to £1000. It also said I did not respond to the first, but we did when we first got it.

[Aston_Martin_DB9]

Had my 2nd letter this morning from that so called law firm ACS:Law.

 

I sent my first LOD back to them in June (when I had my first letter) & they have said I did not respond to their 1st letter & I had 21 days to reply.

The fee has doubled from the first letter, it was originally £500 and now in the 2nd letter it has doubled to a £1000.

I thought it was up to the courts to decide how much money you get fined & not this Mickey Mouse law firm ACS.

They also say in the 2nd letter to pay within 7 days.

Another thing thats bugged me is the bank details they have sent out with the letters, What law firm asks for information like that!

Oh yeah & the signature at the bottom of the page, is it a signature.

 

Will be interesting what Crossley's next tactics will be, I personally think he is trying to scare us all & he won't have a penny out of me.

As im going to say show me the evidence Crossley of what I am supposed to of done.

[mr.ton]

I would love to know what, if anything the authorities are doing about this company?

[babybear39]

Nothing by the looks of it

[teddylorry]

hi,got my second letter today as well.same thing that they said that i did not responed to their first letter,the thing is i sent by registered post ,phoned the post office and they said it had been received and it had been signed for,and they will email me the proof,guess what acs law will get in the next post.

[Huff&Puff]

Clearly they are just using the standard DCA tactic of sending out a load of computer-generated letters at predetermined intervals, irrespective of whether you have corresponded with them previously. Which makes me think that it is even less likely to go anywher near a court room, as that kind of behaviour is unlikely to go down very well with judge.

 

When you look at it logically what would they be putting before a court?

• We optained an IP address using a secret method, which we will not divulge, and so cannot prove that it is accurate in any way, shape, or form.
  
• Even if the IP address is accurate, we cannot how that the defendant did the actual downloading, or even that any downloading took place
  
• We are completely ignoring any letters of denial that we receive
  
• We are claiming damages that bear no relation at all to our actual losses, and changing the amounts demaned as well
  

 

I don't think so somehow.

[lindseyb]

I also have recieved a second letter in the post today, saying the same thing as above, I however never responded to their 1st letter so I will be sending a lod off by reg post tomorrow! Has anyone had anything other than a 2nd letter? Has this gone any further with anyone else???

[rainbow33]

I recieved a 2nd letter today but did not respond to the first one. Mine if for supposedly downloading Scooter...which i certainly did not do, but cannot vouch for everyone who has ever been on my pc. What should i do???

They are now asking fo £500 or it will go to court.

 

Has anyone tried the tele no?

 

Thanks

Worried:(

[brokebutnotbeatn]

READ THIS THREAD; the answers are all in here!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry guys, but this thread is 49 pages long and its all been said. Guess I'm just grumpy this afternoon!

[jeffersno1]

Hi People,

 

i received my second letter today - exactly 3 months after the first letter. I ignored the 1st. and will continue to ignore the rest

 

I for one wont be paying a penny, I've never downloaded "jumping all over the world" by Scooter, and neither would i want to (its naff to say the least). I currently have Sky Broadband, and they provided me with a router which is password protected and does not allow p2p traffic through, so how on earth they have come to this conclusion is beyond me. They say i have downloaded this audio via emule which is p2p software and uses certain ports, all of which are barred when using the crappy router that sky provide.

 

I've also heard on many occasions that ISP are selling this info onto companies so that they can conduct this kind of behavior.

 

I'm a network engineer and i work for a mobile broadband company (no names) i can see on a daily basis what users are doing, what protocols they use (and yes that includes p2p over HTTPS connections) and what sites they visit, we have even developed scripts / programs to determine behaviors for certain users. In no way shape or form do we send letters or block users from using certain services, however stopping people from using services like skype, p2p, voIP etc is extremely easy.

 

I'm baffled to understand why the government is not asking ISP's to block users from downloading over p2p, for most ISP's if not all, its the single highest consumer of bandwidth in the network (if you allow it), most customers just leave their p2p applications running all day & night.

 

I would love to hear some more info from watchdog on this, and would love to hear any outcome from any court cases, none of which i bet have been attended to by the accusers.

 

Jeffers

[rainbow33]

Thats why i was asking! just came across this thread and would be here for DAYS reading 49 pages!!